this ocean will not be grasped

I wrote this hours ago, and I’ve debated whether or not I should post it. This is an incredibly divisive issue, and I’m sure that I will end up on more of those stupid boycott lists because of this, and that’s probably not the smartest business move, considering that I have a book coming out in less than two weeks . . . but I have to stand up for my beliefs, so here it is:
When I heard that George W. Bush had called for an amendment to the Constitution that would effectively codify homosexuals as second-class citizens, I recalled something Howard Dean said recently:

In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it in a shameful way–by dividing Americans against one another, stirring up racial prejudices, and bringing out the worst in people.
They called it the “Southern Strategy,” and the Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using phrases like “racial quotas” and “welfare queens” to convince white Americans that minorities were to blame for all of America’s problems.
The Republican Party would never win elections if they came out and said their core agenda was about selling America piece by piece to their campaign contributors and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a few. To distract people from their real agenda, they run elections based on race, dividing us, instead of uniting us . . .

Dean was right. Just read that again, and replace “racial prejudices” with “sexual prejudices.”
I hate it when I agree with politicians, but John Kerry said what I thought as soon as I heard the news:

“This president can’t talk about jobs. He can’t talk about health care. He can’t talk about a foreign policy which has driven away allies and weakened the United States, so he is looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people.”

Personally, I don’t think the government should be involved in marriage in any way. I believe that marriage is between two people who love each other, who wish to make a commitment to stay together through good times and bad. I suppose that it can also be between those people and whatever god they choose to worship, but even then . . . wouldn’t it be stupid for the government to tell couples which god can bless their marriage? And who cares what sex they are?
An interesting thing has happened since San Francisco started granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples: my marriage is just fine!
That’s right. Even though there are thousands of gay and lesbian couples affirming their love for and commitment to each other, my marriage — my affirmation of love and commitment to Anne — isn’t threatened at all. As a matter of fact, the only people who can really “threaten” my marriage are . . . well . . . the two of us.
And this brings me to the first thing that’s so profoundly upsetting about this entire issue: it’s not about marriage, it’s not about love, it’s not about family, it’s not about commitment. It’s about hating homosexuals. It’s about treating homosexuals as if they are second-class citizens. It’s about dividing this country into those who support discrimination, and those who don’t. It’s about Karl Rove updating The Southern Strategy.
It comes as no surprise to me that, as part of that strategy, George W. Bush wants to take the Constitution, a document that is supposed to limit government and guarantee freedoms to all Americans, away from millions of our fellow citizens who are homosexual. I didn’t buy the “I’m a uniter, not a divider, compassionate conservative” bullshit during the 2000 campaign, and this is just another example of Mr. Bush revealing his true colors. And this argument that it’s a response to “activist judges?” That’s a huge load of crap too. Mr. Bush has a lot of nerve talking about “activist judges,” considering that he owes his presidency to five of them.
Ultra-Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan said it best, I think:

The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land. Rather than allow the contentious and difficult issue of equal marriage rights to be fought over in the states, rather than let politics and the law take their course, rather than keep the Constitution out of the culture wars, this president wants to drag the very founding document into his re-election campaign. He is proposing to remove civil rights from one group of American citizens – and do so in the Constitution itself. The message could not be plainer: these citizens do not fully belong in America. Their relationships must be stigmatized in the very Constitution itself. The document that should be uniting the country will now be used to divide it, to single out a group of people for discrimination itself, and to do so for narrow electoral purposes. Not since the horrifying legacy of Constitutional racial discrimination in this country has such a goal been even thought of, let alone pursued. Those of us who supported this president in 2000, who have backed him whole-heartedly during the war, who have endured scorn from our peers as a result, who trusted that this president was indeed a uniter rather than a divider, now know the truth.

Yes, I am shocked that I agree with Andrew Sullivan about anything, but that just illustrates how insane this idea is, and how it transcends political ideology.
Now, I have no doubt that this effort will fail. I believe that it will ultimately backfire on the Bush Administration, and contribute to his defeat in November. The United States just isn’t the Theocracy that Mr. Bush wants to create.
There is a wonderful opportunity here, though, that I haven’t heard anyone talk about, yet: we are now forced, as a nation, to acknowledge and confront the widespread discrimination against gays and lesbians, and I believe that Americans will unite against segregation now, just as we did during the Civil Rights movement.
I believe in America. I believe in the Bill of Rights, and the founding principals of this nation. I believe that goodness, compassion, and tolerance will triumph over hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.
And I am proud to stand up for these beliefs, whatever the consequences.

462 thoughts on “this ocean will not be grasped”

  1. I haven’t cried this hard from reading someone’s blog in a very long time. Thank you so much for putting this up. I’m a bisexual Atheist, so I am extremely discriminated against right now. Bush is making that clear. I don’t think it’s right that we live in a country where the President can show such blatent discrimination. It sickens me. Again, thank you. You don’t know how much this blog entry means to me.

  2. Will,
    I couldn’t agree with you more! In order to preserve freedom, Church and State should be kept SEPARATE! Quite frankly, Bush scares me with his fundamentalist (and often militant) religious rhetoric. I hope Americans pull together and oust this fanatic!
    As soon as your book is available in Canada, I’ll be heading out to get my copy!

  3. For what it’s worth: I’ve been politically indifferent for years, registered Independant in my old state and voting every four years by mail-in. *This* is the issue that was big enough, important enough to me, to get me re-registered, as a Democrat (because I want to be able to vote in the primaries), in my current home state. Which is Massachusetts. No amendment. Never.

  4. Thank you, thank you, thank you! I was just talking to my husband this morning about how angry I am about this issue. I am so glad to see you stand up and be counted. It just makes me glad that I enjoy reading your column so much, and that we are of like minds on this subject.
    AND I PROMISE TO BUY 10 COPIES OF YOUR BOOK, to make up for the assholes who might boycott you(they don’t deserve to have your book anyway – so there!)
    HEY WE SHOULD ALL DO THAT – RIGHT? Right!

  5. Instead of an amendment banning love, how’s about one allowing 31-year-olds to be president??
    Wil Wheaton for America 2004! :o)

  8. thanks, Wil. once again, a clear and compassionate commentary on current events.
    I want to second Sacha’s post. as another cultural anthropologist, I find the debates about ‘marriage’ in this country interesting, for while many people may not know about the range of marriage and family systems found cross-culturally, there seems to be the awareness that ‘our’ system needs to be propped up. what this means to me is that the ship has sailed (judging from the posts on this blog) and the issue is moot. our evolving, cultural definition of marriage seems to be “a union between 2 loving people that extends legal protections and rights to the children and survivors of that union”

  10. Thank you for pointing out that your marriage is in no way, shape, or form damaged by gay marriages. That’s the part that stuns me — why on earth are people getting so worked up about something that can only help one group of people and takes nothing away from everyone else. IT’S A RED HERRING, PEOPLE!!! Ugh.
    Anyway, rock on Wil.
    -MK from Mass.

  11. Thank you so much for you comments on this issue Wil. This one does hit close to home for me. I am leaning to see marriage as a LEGAL contract between two people that love and cherish each other.
    -gil

  12. Well said Wil. I completely agree, and while I try to understand and accept other people’s beliefs – I just can’t grasp the other viewpoint here. Hasn’t our society progressed to the point where this shouldn’t even be an issue? I sincerely hope this backfires against the ultra-conservatives.

  13. I consider myself to have a pretty long fuse. I haven’t really lost my temper in years, but reading your post I felt my blood start to boil. How people can so blatantly support discrimination and not be ashamed and disgusted of themselves is beyond me.
    I’m going to go slightly off topic here, but bear with me. I live in Australia, where the current government has, for the last three terms, done some things that are just inexplicably stupid and inhuman. My knowledge of American politics is shady at best, but reading that quote from Dean reminded my of Australia’s current policy on asylum seekers. For a while now we’ve been enforcing ‘mandatory detention’ that is, when ever anyone seeks asylum from Australia, they get locked up until their claim can be processed. This is regardless of age or physical condition. Some of them remain there for years while the government fumbles through their paper work.
    The Howard government used this hard line attitude towards what they termed ‘illegal immigrants’ (a blatant misrepresentation, seeking asylum is perfectly legal) to help them win the last election. I was disgusted that enough people supported it for them to be re-elected.
    Back on topic, Howard is trying to stop gay marriages from ever being legal here, saying that marriage is for ‘the survival of the species’ and since gay couples can’t have their own children, they therefore shouldn’t be allowed to marry! I don’t need to tell you many things fucked up about that. I mean, does this guy listen to himself?
    This stuff is just the tip of the iceberg, but it would take way to long to list the rest, so I’ll move on.
    We also have an election coming up, and if the opposition can hold it together, Howard should be ousted this time, but it really depresses me that voters allowed his bullshit to survive three terms…
    Anyhow, thanks for listening to my rant whoever’s read this, and a big thanks to Wil for his inspiring post.
    PS: I’d be worried if you weren’t on those boycott lists!

  17. Thank you for saying this. We’re working in my state (Rhode Island) to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriages. It’s just been introduced, so we have a long, long road to success. Words like yours encourage us to work even harder.
    Oh, and I’m certainly buying your book.

  19. Well said. It is really odd that bush keeps talking, and so does the GOVERNATOR., that these laws and amendments will solidify the sanctity of marriage. I thought the divorce rate was like 52%? Why is there no law agains divorce to provide that sanctity of marriage. That seems weird to me.

  20. Great comments! It’s amazing that a man that has the insight and courage to dedicate funding for us to travel back to the stars is ignorant enough to do something as foolish and narrow-minded as this.
    Oh yea, anybody ignorant enough to boycott your book, blog or anything else is not worth your time and is no great loss.

  22. Thanks again for voicing how my wife and I feel about this and other important issues Wil.
    I think I have forwarded more of your posts to friends and family in the past month than ever before.
    Ignorance is teh suck!

  23. Wil, you rock. You are my new favorite writer. I’m going to buy at least two of Dancing Barefoot. I’m mortified that one of my former favorite writers, Orson Scott Card, can use such incredibly ass-backward logic in support of his position. Thanks to fellow commenter Adrienne for bringing this to my attention.

  24. I don’t have time to read all the posts but I’ve glanced and I am happy that a lot of you are against what the president is proposing.
    For some of you who seem to be offended by Wil’s comments, you know…you don’t have to come here. I found one person particularly interesting when he said that he’s been frustrated by Wil’s posts for quite a while. Isn’t obvious that he does not share your views? If you are frustrated, then don’t come here anymmore then.

  25. You can check this out on the internet. The Bible says that practicing male homosexuals must be put to death. I can’t find anywhere that it ever mentions females in reference to this, but women didn’t matter anyway. Just being gay brought no punishment unless they were actually doing something. But then again, it also says that adulterers must be put to death, but let’s don’t get carried away. Pick and choose what verses to practice. Even though the Pope says that you mustn’t do that!

  27. “I believe that Americans will unite against segregation now, just as we did during the Civil Rights movement.”
    I really wish I could believe that. It’s pretty tough though from all I’ve been seeing and hearing lately. It seems like way too many people are pretty okay with banning gay marriage.

  28. trust me wil, i feel the same way. the government should have nothing to do with marriages, it just has to do with the people in love and who want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives. i hate how most of the candidates are against it. but some want them to just be in a civil union. thats great,i can see on the back of the car after the wedding instead of saying “just married”, it can say “just unionized”… ok well im done ranting.. and i agree w/ other WWdN readers when I say Wil Wheaton for President.. rock on Wil.. cant wait to get your book…

  29. Hi there Wil,
    I don’t normally read your blog, but I remember you from ST:TNG–and a gay friend of mine heartily endorsed this posting of yours in his own Livejournal. I came over to read it, and I wanted to publically thank you for your eloquent words.
    Regards,
    Anna Korra’ti in Seattle

  31. Thank you for posting this, Wil.
    I’ve been hearing a lot of talk on the local radio stations about how “the ideal family environment to raise children is one man and one woman” because kids need role models of both genders in their lives. Or something like that. And it makes my blood boil… such statements, given as support for codifying benefits to families in the “ideal” configuration and ignoring all other families… they ignore all of the single parents, the blended step-families, the queer couples raising perfectly well-adjusted children… as well as heterosexual couples with children where abuse is happening in the home. All of those families do exist in America, and they shouldn’t be ignored simply because they’re not “ideal”.
    Thanks for the opportunity to soap-box a bit. Ranting in my car just didn’t help, though writing to my elected representatives is helping me feel a bit better. Please, everyone, do that. The writing, not the ranting in your cars, I mean. Or call or fax them. The ballot box on Tuesday, and again in November, is not the only way to make yourself heard.
    Thanks again.

  32. I haven’t read all the posts because I ain’t young, but I just really don’t understand what the problem is.
    Wil summed it up just fine. I am a man and my marriage (to a woman) hasn’t changed since Canada allowed gay marriage, Mass. didn’t change it, and now SF had, I dare to say it, no effect. I really have some questions of the motive of our so-called leader:
    If we’re so busy fighting a “war” (on terrorism), why do we need to find something to distract America from that fight?
    What if America had to worry about gay marriage during World War II? Would we have all been on the same side and fought the enemy as one? Our country gave up metal, meat, gas, any other item we all take for granted today to fight the good fight. And now look at us.
    Bush had a golden opportunity to be a leader among leaders, someone that will sacrifice and strive to make others sacrifice for the common good. Instead, our country is more divided than ever, and now on a subject, that to me anyway, is truly a petty subject. I ask…How does this affect a straight marriage? How does this affect single mothers? How does this affect America?
    Anyone But Bush in 2004!

  33. Wil,
    Preach it brother.
    It’s amazing to me that some people just can’t seem to grasp the whole ‘equal protection under the law’ thing.
    Oh yeah, and my wife and I… we’re fine. Our marriage hasn’t collapsed because of all this.
    If gay people are allowed ‘marriage’ then their relationships will have the same legitimate status as heterosexual marriages. And that offends people.
    And that’s just sad.
    pete

  35. realize I’ve come into this comment thread a bit late, so I hope I don’t seem like a flaming troll.
    but..
    There’s nothing homosexuals can gain from “marriage” that they cannot get from “civil unions”. Therefore the only agenda this movement can have is the destruction of the word/traditional relationship that is “marriage”
    Activist judges/mayors etc. are not happy that the public has voted on this issue (in state elections, in polls, nationally, regionally, by state and on a local levels) and, for the most part, overwhelmingly denied it, so they poo poo exsisting laws in favor of forwarding a liberal agenda that can’t get traction otherwise.
    Does it make sense to do something “illegal” in order to be recognized as a “legal” union. The cause cancels out the objective.
    /no gay basher, just my .02
    (oh yeah, and I really don’t wanna see some big burly gay biker in a wedding dress)……
    or do I????

  38. Wil,
    Thank you for your comments and discussion. I admire your site and very often your politics. Count me among those who believe it’s important to stand up for the equal rights of all people. And for the ideals of our constitution, which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – for everyone.
    – Tara

  39. The problem with ‘civil unions’ is that employers and other agencies are not compelled to give the same benefits to ‘civil unions’ as they are to married couples. It also allows organizations to discriminate, sight unseen, against gays. (Look for the “civil union” box checked instead of “single” or “married.”)
    Better yet, let’s eliminate marriage from government entirely. Everybody gets a ‘civil union’, which is a contract signed in front of a judge or other official. If a couple wants to have a ‘wedding’ or ‘marriage’, they can go to their local religious figure, but such a ceremony has no meaning to government. Problem solved: the fundies can keep their ‘sacred’ marriages (at least until the divorce) and all couples can get the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of race, religion or orientation. By having one checkbox on all forms, no discrimination is possible.

  40. Good for you! I’m glad you spoke up for your beliefs, and I’m even more glad for what those beliefs are. And I’ll be buying the book now, even though I have no idea what it’s about. So it’s not all bad for business. 🙂

  43. Well said Wil! It is about time we recognize what is really going on with this issue. It is about denying civil rights not some stupid sanctity of marriage b.s. G/L people are expected to pay taxes, obey the law and be a part of a society that won’t allow them basic civil rights? Thats so wrong. Just wrong.

  44. Hello Will. I’ve never read your blog before, but there was a link from live journal. *Big Star Trek fan*
    Anyway, I will say that these same-sex marriages do have a direct affect on my own marriage – I feel like San Francisco’s commitment to eliminate marriage discrimination actually strengths the institution for all of us. I am getting married next year after grad school, but I have often felt like I can’t in good conscience accept a legal marriage when so many are denied it. Now, however, I feel that as a Bay Area resident I can obtain a marriage that is actually fair, just and meaningful.

  46. I have to say that when I heard Bush yesterday I felt sick to my stomach. What right does he have to say who people should love and marry? I have a son that is gay and if he told me he wanted to marry and spend the rest of his life with someone he loved I would be just as happy for him as I was for my daughter. This world is filled with so much hate, and now Bush is feeding even more hate. As for protecting marrage, how long have women realy had a say about how their husband could treat them? Not long ago a man had the right to everything that a woman brought into the marrage and the wife could not say a thing about it. He could treat her any way he wanted,and again she couldn’t say a thing. Now Mr. Bush wants to protect it? How long must we put up with a small group of people telling us what to believe? Sorry about the ramble I feel strongly about this. Please, I am begging everyone to get out and vote. Do not let this man take away more freedom from us!

  48. Man, Wil, you just made my day.
    And a question for the Civil Union people out there, if separate but equal is considered discriminatory in the realm of education, how is it any different in matrimony?

  49. You go Will!!! F the people that would boycott you for beleiving in whats right, would you really be able to take their money anyway? You comments about your marrage not being threatened by allowing homosexuals also marry for love is dead on. I’m proud to be a Will Wheaton fan, knowing that you will stand up for what you beleive in. I got your back all the way dude!!

  50. Believe it or not, the marriages in SF are actually strenghtening one marriage: mine. The spouse and I have been in a bit of a rut lately (long story there), and I think I’ve been taking him a bit for granted. Seeing how many people have been chomping at the bit for the privilege of saying, “I love you” in public makes me more eager than ever to fight for the future of my own marriage and the man I love. (This would be a great time for the spouse to read over my shoulder.)
    We need to separate the legal aspects of marriage (joint tax filing, streamlined inheritance by surviving partner, making of medical decisions, etc.) from the religious aspects (for whatever your church of choice is). A church can’t be forced to recognize any couple that doesn’t meet their requirements…but because we have separation of church and state, they also should not be able to dictate to the government to whom they can or can’t give legal secular recognition.
    Here endeth the rant…if you get boycotted, Wil, I’ll buy two copies of JAG to make up for it, okay??? (Heck, I’ll probably have to buy two anyway so the spouse and I won’t fight over it!)

Comments are closed.

Related Posts

Recent Posts